There is no judicial review for amendments to the US constitution either. In the US the job of the courts are to interpret and apply the constitution. It's not their role to write it or constrain the writing of it.
The Supreme Court can and does severely constrain or expand what the writing is interpreted to actually apply to - you see this all the time around 1st, 2nd, 5th, 10th US amendments. In theory, a whole amendment could be neutered or nuked that way.
No, that's not how it works. The 1st, 2nd, etc. Amendments are reinterpreted, but they are never done away with unless another amendment modifies or nullifies it. Laws that are not part of the constution on the other hand are nullified by the courts relatively frequently.
In theory, but in practice that is more of an accepted convention than a hard rule and dependent on the willingness of the other branches to rein it in. As the sole arbiter of what is and is not constitutional, including how to read and interpret existing language - they can do what they can get away with.
For instance, the text of the 10th Amendment makes it pretty clear that the original intent was that states were sovereign except for those powers explicitly carved out to the Federal gov't - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Since WW2 (and a bit before that, including rulings 'reinterpreting' the commerce clause to cover things like growing wheat on your own land for your own consumption within an individual state to assist the Executive in enforcing price controls over the economy), the supreme court has ruled that essentially Congress can regulate anything it wants, city, state and federal level. This is how we've ended up with things like federal laws against possession of drugs (even in states that have them legalized), federal laws regulating firearms (including possession of ones that are legalized in the state), federal laws on computer crimes, etc.
If that isn't a radical shift and expansion of an amendment (without going through a further amendment process), I don't know what is.
Similarly on the defacto removal side - 4th amendment protections and Asset Forfeiture, which allows near arbitrary and impossible to stop seizure of 'suspicious' assets has been ruled constitutional on a very flimsy basis - essentially as long as it gets rubber stamped by the courts, good to go.
